tv [untitled] April 7, 2011 10:30pm-11:00pm PDT
spoke said it was because he succeeded so well and had growing pains. i buy that. i think that probably is really what happened. maybe that also explains the way the serial permitting happened, which i do have an issue with generally. i would just take to penalize a successful business, as was said by some of the other commissioners. i would be inclined, also because the landlord does not object, to decrease the penalty to the minimum we can to get down to, $100 a day. commissioner peterson: can make a motion to make it $150 a day? >> you can make that motion. commissioner hwang: if you don't
mind, i was thinking of another, to make. -- another comment to make. i think it is clear that ike's has already learned its lesson. this business has grown and is developing and doing a great job. obviously, it is paying out at some of the pains of this learning process, and has done so with these tenant actions and nuisance actions, whatever they are called. i think that is persuasive to me that this is not going to be a problem that is ongoing. we will see -- we will not see ike's hear over and over again. thank you for allowing me to say that. commissioner peterson: how many votes are needed? >> it will require four votes.
president goh: if $150 is as low as you would go, i would support it. commissioner peterson: how about $125? president goh: if commissioner fung votes against us, we would have to continue it to allow vice-president garcia to vote. commissioner fung: i will move them that we continue it. >> do you want to suggest a date? commissioner fung: whatever is convenient for the parties. president goh: doesn't make sense for us to go ahead and vote and have a three-one, or does it not make any difference? >> if it is your practice to allow a continuance for the full
board to hear it, it probably does not make a difference either way. it would probably make sense just to continue it. president goh: thank you. >> the next meeting is april 20. we have very full calendars for the next several meetings. if you want to have it soon, you will have a full calendar. commissioner peterson: you could put it at the end of april 20. we would still need -- yes we will. president goh: this does not affect their ability to open a new shop and will not affect the city's finances, would it? commissioner fung: i move continuing to may 25. >> are the parties available on may 25? ok.
president goh: you need to approach the microphone if you are going to speak. >> you do not need more testimony, do you? >> it is possible a commissioner will have questions, but the hearing disclosed. >> we are not available those days. commissioner fung: the motion is to continue to allow for a vote. commissioner peterson: but if the vice president has questions for the parties, the parties will not be available. commissioner fung: i am ok with that. >> the motion is to continue to may 25. on that motion -- president goh: aye. commissioner peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >> the vice president is absent.
the motion carries. thank you and thank you, deputies -- deputy city attorney allen is. -- city attorney owens. as we are changing deputy city attorney's -- attornies, i will call the next item, item 5a. this is two rehearing requests for 1468 fulton street. we received a letter from cbs outdoor and from the community housing, requesting a rehearing of the appeal decided on
february 9, 2011. at the time, the board voted 3-2 to uphold the permit on the basis it complies with the code and the city did not err in issuing such permit. it is the removal of an advertising will sign pursuant to a notice of violation, and permit number 2010/10/13/2815. a public hearing was held on march 16, 2011 and was continued to allow sub middle of additional briefing and evidence -- sub middle -- submittal of additional briefing and evidence. president goh: i did watch the video that evening. we had continued in order to get the lease agreement. i had suggested that we not have further oral argument.
but if the commissioners have arguments -- have questions, the can obviously ask them. commissioner hwang: i have a couple of questions for mr. espinosa. >> good evening. commissioner hwang: thank you. in reviewing the file for today, i reread your declaration here that you submitted on february 22. the last bullet says, "i am financially dependent on the income from the billboard to meet my financial obligation to the bank. without it, i cannot continue
making payments to keep my property." that was a true statement, right? i heard at the last hearing that you only received one check in the course of three years from cbs out door. is that correct? >> i believe they were making payments not in a monthly -- lump-sum is ever so often. commissioner hwang: i thought you said you had not been paid anything for 2.5 years. >> i had statements from my management company. commissioner hwang: what kind of statements? >> statements regarding the operations. commissioner hwang: how much money were you depending on receiving from cbs? >> $500. commissioner hwang: and you
received one check to 0.5 years ago? >> i am not really sure at this time. commissioner hwang: thank you. president goh: any other questions, or should we jump into deliberation? commissioner peterson: i have a question for counsel for cbs outdoor. in the lease agreement submitted with your brief, i notice the lessee has full discretion.
well, let me just start at the beginning. that whole paragraph basically allows the lessee to determine in its own opinion whether or not to maintain the fine. >> well, not exactly. i do not think it is an illusory provision. oftentimes, especially in the city, they will complete the make it uneconomic, so sometimes neighborhoods will change -- they will complete the make it uneconomical. whether it is uneconomical or whether it is blocked, there are certain criteria, if that is what you're asking. commissioner hwang: you are saying that this does not provide your client with a soul
ability to make this determination? >> any determination has to be made in good faith. because it is a contract, i do not think a determination could be made in bad faith. >> turning to paragraph 3 of your lease, that allows the leslie the right to make any necessary applications, permits, etc., but for the construction and maintenance of the full discretion of lessee. all such permits shall always remain the property of the lessee, so can you explain that authority to operate the sign, get permits, bill and signs, remove signs. i think that is how it sounds. however, the issue here is not really authority. the issue here is agency and
whether or not we were acting on behalf of mr. espinosa, and i think that is where the issues diverge. commissioner hwang: ok, thank you. commissioner fung: would you like to respond? i think i had heard from the previous hearing that he had not been paid for quite awhile. would you like to provide a little history of that? >> i have not examined the payment history, to be honest with you, but what i do know is that there is a property manager, a property management company that has been involved on this property for some time, and the payments may have gone to the property manager. mr. espinoza may not have known if the payments were made. i am also aware that there was a lag time between the purchase of the property by mr. espinosa edd
notification of cbs, paying the prior property owner went for some time. i do not know exactly how long that was. those are all the facts that i know. president goh: let me ask you, because i saw it when i watched it on the video, but the owner was invited to speak, and he declined to speak and allow you to speak for him. can you talk about that? >> well, what i can say to that is prior to the hearing, i was in contact with the property management company. president goh: ok, thank you.
so, commissioners, we are in deliberations, and i can start because we just said that. some of my notes from the hearing that i watched on the video, at the hearing, cbs claims that they were an authorized agent for the applicant, and in the same questions that commissioner hwang asked that she just did about payment, and the hearing was, "did you receive payment from cbs during the ownership?," and he said, "i do not remember when the last payment was," and the fact that he was invited to speak and declined to speak.
any other comments, commissioners? commissioner hwang: i am troubled by contradictions of that. i do not believe there are new facts, and i do agree with the department's position that it is simply new arguments. president goh: is there a motion? commissioner fung: it was an interesting argument been my counsel -- made by counsel about who has the rights would be permitting, and the logic is that, yes, of course, the owner has some rights with respect to what occurs on their property. when i asked for the lease, it
was not so much to let get this sort of comprehensive rights of the vc and the owner of the billboard, it was more in terms of what establishes the sort of code ownership relationship in terms of approvals necessary with respect to the permit, and part of that then relates to whether that co-owner relationship was maintained through the conditions of belize, which have involved payments. it appears that payments were not being made before the particular nature of the ownership agreement was probably not in place, and therefore, if i was to read into the rights of
the leafy, they have full rights then to remove or replace the billboard, and therefore, i would support the department's position in this case. president goh: is there a motion, commissioners? commissioner hwang: i move to deny both of the requests? director goldstein: of these or both? one was made by cbs outdoor. so emotion than from commissioner hwang is to deny
2011/01/18/8485 and 2011/01/21/8757, which were issued on january 18, 2011, in january 21, 2011, respectively. the first is a kitchen and bath remodeling project, a new hardwood floor, new interior paint 49 apartment units, no structural work, and the second permit is for repair, no structural work, and it does not affect the safety. we will start with mr. mooring, or your representative, the requester. >> thank you. my attorneys do not contessa they waited the 15-day period for the appeal to expire. i was actually resigned to not
appeal and, although i feel i have the basis for a very meritorious appeal, but when they began work on a unit 104, which is an illegal unit, which is not on any of the permits, they started an extensive remodel of that unit, and i had actually been promised that my right would be more than doubled through passthroughs, and i believe that work in this unit was possibly tied to some kind of intend to defraud, so i contacted the department of building inspection and submitted a complete about it. my first complaint was debated. my second complaint was filed, when i submitted photographic evidence of a significant work that was being done to that unit. but i spoke to inspector duffy and other staff at dbi, and they were very courteous and professional. inspector duffy told me that the
contract costs associated with the project had raised eyebrows, and based on the description of work being done, -- commissioner hwang: would you meinecke speaking louder? i cannot hear you. >> the contract costs associated with the permit had raised eyebrows and seemed exorbitance based on the description of work being done. when the photographs were submitted that refuted whatever the owners were cleaning, i got a very angry phone call from their agent, and i mentioned that to inspector duffy, as well, because those photographs were apparently used to refute
that, whatever work was being done, and that is basically the basis for my request for jurisdiction, that this new incident regarding uncommitted work in unit 104, that gives me the right to ask for an appeal. i did seek legal advice. i went to the tenderloin housing clinic, and she helped me to prepare the jurisdiction request. as to the meritorious appeal, that is actually much easier for me to prove. in my first meeting with the landlord's agent, mr. o'sullivan, i was told of their intention was to tenancy in common. that necessarily means that all of the current tenants had to leave, in he did, in fact, in for me that i would be gotten out of the building one way or another, and he listed several
ways that they could use to get me out of the building. the first was an inspection of my apartment to find fault korea the second one was a ciop -- cip, where they said they could get me up for several months with the promise of more months, and then they would double my rent, and that if everything else fails, they would -- [bell] commissioner hwang: who was the person who made these statements to you? >> that would be mr. o'sullivan from the construction company. commissioner hwang: that would- be contractor? .thank you. ok. commissioner fung: sir, this building, is that the only address for this building could >> yes, it is. commissioner fung: so when you made the statement that the units were not included, what
was the basis -- >> that is an illegal unit. commissioner fung: which one? number one? >> number one hundred four. >> it is on the first floor of the building and is designated as a storage area. president goh: 80. director goldstein: ok, we can hear from the permit holder now. >> my name is barry sherman. i am a residence in san francisco. i do not own any other properties. i purchased this because i it was undervalued duke or performance over the past 36 years. my plan was to correct all deficiencies with a major renovation of the entire property, which would
necessitate the all tenants would have to vacate korea i was aware that there were tenants who wished to move back in good and followed all regulations in implementing the plan. quired to the close of expert -- of escrow, my representative met with others, including him, to explain what the options would be. in the second meeting, mr. mooring said that he would not vacate. he has since refused to speak to mr. o'sullivan, but then he said he was aware that permits had been issued. we are currently proceeding with work in six apartments that have been vacated. two units will be vacated within several days. i kindly ask the to allow me to continue the ongoing work and ask you that you deny his jurisdiction request. i assure you that mr. mooir --
mooring will be allowed to move back in when the work is completed. >> hi, my name is -- i and the attorney for mr. sherman. i want to emphasize that granting jurisdiction in this matter will result in the complete cessation of all remediation work at the nine- unit structure, including six units that are currently vacant where we mediation has already occurred. in addition, there is a tenant who has already left the building with the anticipation of coming back within three months, and it jurisdiction is granted on behalf of this gentleman, but tended to has just left, his plans will be interrupted, as well. important, mr. o'sullivan has reached out repeatedly to mr. mooring without success. there has been no underhanded or
malfeasance in our conduct. there was a termination notice. he has, pursuant to san francisco rent control law, the absolute right to return. he will be given, as long as the timely vacate and is consistent with the rent ordinance, $8,500 to transition out temporarily. the notice was attached, and most importantly, he has the right to come back in at you read that he is paying right now. the big issue is that mr. moo ring is being obstinate, and he does not want to temporarily relocate. we find that this interference is wholly inappropriate, and most importantly, our building -- our goal is to renovate a building and make it beautiful and allow them to come back, including mr. mooring, and he would be given an upgraded building.
but.director goldstein: i am sorry per your time is wop -- your time is up. the timer is not working, but your time is up. president goh: you said he could come back at the same rent? >> at the time of him coming back again at the completion of the renovation project, because no past repetition has been filed, he would be entitled to come in at the bread that is currently in place. if my clients and chooses to submit a pastor petition, he has the right to contest the pass through and also has the right to allege a hardship so his rent will not be increased due to his economic situation. the concern we have is essentially one person is potentially through this jurisdictional issue pricklg